Brancasons v. Carlstadt Borough

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that once the Government has established that a conspiracy exists, \[i]t is sufficient to show that each defendant knew or had reason to know of the scope of the conspiracy\ to prove defendant's knowing participation
• holding that once the Government has established that a conspiracy exists, “[i]t is sufficient to show that each defendant knew or had reason to know of the scope of the conspiracy” to prove defendant’s knowing participation
• noting that a single conspiracy exists when “there was ‘one overall agreement’ to perform various functions to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy,’” even if there were “subgroups or subagreements” (quoting United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159, 3 1167 (9th Cir. 1980))
• evidence is insufficient to prove single overall conspiracy charged in indictment if proof at trial establishes multiple conspiracies

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).